Texas can require the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public school classrooms, a US appeals court ruled Tuesday in a victory for conservatives who have long sought to incorporate more religion into schools.

It sets up a potential clash at the US supreme court over the issue in the future.

The fifth circuit court of appeals said in the decision that the law did not violate either the establishment clause or the free exercise clause of the first amendment.

The law is among the pushes by Republicans, including Donald Trump, to incorporate religion into public schools. Critics say it violates the separation of church and state while backers argue that the Ten Commandments are historical and part of the foundation of US law.

  • nocturne@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    5 days ago

    Hopefully we see the Nine Satanic Statements, The Seven Fundamental Tenants of The Satanic Temple, and many, many others too

    • limer@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 days ago

      I think the government is too unhealthy for these strategies. The rate of government corruption in Texas as well as failures in Federal protections seems to be accelerating. What may have worked last year might not work later.

  • MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    Is anyone with a legal background able to explain how this does “not violate either the establishment clause or the free exercise clause of the first amendment”? It certainly seems like it would. Edited for clarity.

    • Powderhorn@beehaw.orgOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 days ago

      The Establishment Clause is literally the opening portion of the First Amendment, before it goes into freedom of speech, assembly, etc.

    • tomenzgg@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 days ago

      The conservatives generally argue that not allowing things like this is a prohibition of the free exercice of religion.

      Think of it in the same sort of reasoning that restricting a business organization (such as a corporation) from controlling who frequents their establishments or whether they spend their earning on political donations is a restraint of their freedom of speech.

      You might argue that allowing for that leads to clear and swift problems but they argue that the text doesn’t actually say those rights shouldn’t belong to those groups (and the originalists argue that’s actually, even, what the original authors have in mind; I’d argue the opposite is true but when has something like evidence stopped them…).

      You would think not respecting an establishment of religion would be interpreted as a separation of church and state but I think they argue that it means (somewhat) that gov. can’t regulate any religious establishment (I think; I’m not as familiar with that part).

      Basically, they think the First Amendment protects only the exercise of religion, even if that practice manages to restrict the exercise of other religions; the government can’t step in to do anything about that: because that would restrict the religious rights and exercise of the first religious group (unless, of course, the second group were Christian; suddenly, then, I suspect they’d understand).

    • Powderhorn@beehaw.orgOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 days ago

      Interesting. I’m sure something was lost in translation because a few seem like duplicates. Rules 34-37 seem especially relevant to our current situation.

      1. I have not polluted the water – Water was a sacred resource, and polluting it would harm both the environment and the community.

      2. I have not spoken angrily or arrogantly – Humility and controlled speech were valued, as arrogance and anger could lead to conflict.

      3. I have not cursed anyone in thought, word, or deeds – Ill will in any form was discouraged, as it created disharmony.

      4. I have not placed myself on a pedestal – Humility was a virtue, and putting oneself above others was discouraged.

      Thanks for the link!

  • Kwakigra@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 days ago

    Behold the secular utility for universal morality of the first five commandments:

    1. “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.

    2. “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments.

    3. “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.

    4. “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

    5. Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.